A successful platform strategy
is seen as a must to efficiently compete in the global automotive industry. Everybody
talks about “platform sharing” and the manufacturing strategies that
this process allows. However, is the platform concept uniformly shared among manufacturers
and applied across regions? Although the concept is, the application certainly
is not.
For example, at VW a platform
is conceived as a “unit that has no impact on the vehicle’s outer
skin that is a chassis including the inner wheelhouses and that comprises as
many as 65 per cent of component parts”. GM thinks of a platform as “a
group of components for an entire model range that might include engines, gearboxes,
axles and suspension but not dashboards”. Fiat thinks about a platform
in a more extended way, which is seen as ”an interfunctional team
in full charge of design, deployment, industrial engineering and life cycle
management of both products and services”.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
The only point that can
be agreed upon is that a platform strategy represents a general sharing of components
and processes across different vehicle models, whose entity depends on manufacturing
techniques developed by each manufacturer. Differing views of the platform stem
from the demands placed upon each OEM and the resources available. While the
idea of a platform is not unique to any manufacturer or region, the applications
over the past decades have been quite divergent – especially when comparing
North America to Europe.
Due to the breadth of the
NA market, the traditional Big Three manufacturers were forced to spread resources
among several segments ranging from passenger car to light truck and full-frame
to unibody architectures. Traditionally, high production volumes on a single
model/bodystyle have characterized the North American landscape more than that
of Europe.
Crowded markets have led
European manufacturers to heighten brand differentiation and growing niche demand
is driving shorter life cycles. In Europe bodystyles have grown more diversified
as the manufacturers create and react to this growing number of niches. However
the volume build per bodystyle is less than that achieved in North America.
The way GM addresses the
C-segments of North America and Europe clearly illustrates this. The North American
J2 (Cavalier/Sunfire) program supports only 3 bodystyles, whereas its European
counterpart the GM3000 Astra/Zafira is offered in 7 bodies.
Each GM3000 derivative demands
different driving characteristics, which are satisfied by different under-the-body
components. Such characteristics demand flexibility and innovation that cannot
go with a fixed platform definition. Part commonality in Europe is therefore
reduced and in the coming years will continue to be so as components such as
engine, transmission and suspension systems are used to accentuate differences
between models rather than level them.
As North America is destined
to become a smaller portion of total global vehicle demand, it cannot continue
to be an island unto itself. Initiatives to lower overall development costs
and shift design responsibility to those areas of the company with the greatest
expertise have driven the North American OEMs to look east for solutions. Ford
and GM are utilizing their European bases as centers of development for B, C
& C/D-segment offerings worldwide. As OEM consolidation continues, look
for Europe to become a more important source for the future development of global
unibody platforms.
Being forced to offer a
more varied product line-up with lower specific volumes has created an expertise
in Europe, particularly in these segments, which account for 75% of total European
output vs. 35% in NA. This situation is set to continue, as illustrated in the
accompanying chart based on CSM’ s recently published third quarter production
forecasts.
